The comments above are a simplification of Machover’s views, almost to the point of a travesty. Although he argues that the Israeli Hebrew-speaking Jews constitute a “national community”, he explicitly rejects the continued existence of the Zionist state of Israel. In the text quoted from above, he goes on to state: “it is ridiculous to talk about granting the right to self-determination to an oppressing nation. An oppressing nation is in no need of being granted such a right: it has not only appropriated this right for itself, but is denying it to others! Clearly, the right to self-determination is meaningful only in the case of a nation which is denied, or in danger of being denied, such a right. At present, the Israeli Jews are an oppressing nation. This is so because of certain conditions: the domination of Zionism, its connections with imperialism, the aggressive and colonizing role it is playing in the Mashreq. But what is being discussed here is not the right of self-determination for the Israeli Jews now, in the present context. What is here under discussion is the programme of the socialist Arab revolution. A victorious Arab socialist revolution implies the overthrow of Zionism and of the entire Zionist state structure, together with the liquidation of imperialist domination in the Mashreq. Under such circumstances the Israeli Jews would not remain an oppressor nation; they would become a small national minority in the Arab East. The question which we are raising, and which all revolutionaries of the region must raise, is how this national minority should be dealt with. There are only three possibilities: expulsion from the region, forcible annexation or, finally, granting them the right to self-determination. As socialists, we are totally opposed to the first and second possibilities. There remains only the third possibility: self-determination. To deny them this right would in itself reduce them to the status of an oppressed nation, and the maintenance of a proletarian state is not compatible with the oppression of national minorities. This is very far from Borochovism. In fact, if anyone in this debate can be compared to Borochov, it is ironically Atzmon, who shares the contempt for Jewish life in Europe, and who, like Borochov, considers the Jews to be “an abnormal people”.